what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player? - Chess Forums - Page 10

FM nobodyreally

Jul 6, 2014

0

#181

To anyone who wants to come up with numbers from chess.com about players, averages etc. Please read post #203 (again). Especially the second sentence.

As I clearly stated my opinion of what is "a chess player" might differ from what the majority thinks.

csalami10

Jul 6, 2014

0

#182

Ziryab írta:

csalami10 wrote:

Ziryab írta:

nobodyreally wrote:

First of all 1800 is NOT an experienced GOOD player, It's the rating that goes with a very average mediocre club player.

In the US Chess Federation, which is not terribly atypical for Elo ratings, an 1800 player stands above 88%-90% of all rated players. That's not the normal meaning of average.

How many USCF rated chess players are there? It can't be too much if a player rated 1800 is stronger than the 90% of all other USCF players.
In June, there were 103270 players who had FIDE rating.
The last player who had an 1800 rating was placed 59206. on the list.
So 1800 is still below the average.

Only a couple of years ago, you could not get a FIDE rating below 2000. Then, they lowered it. To have a FIDE rating, one must be significantly above average.

A friend of mine who is 1811 is

Overall Ranking 5356(T) out of 54016 90.1

Rankings include only those with activity in the past year.

Your effort to dismiss a percentile distribution based upon the quantity in the pool is absurd. To see how, extend your logic to Chess.com, where the number of players dwarf the number of FIDE rated players.

Here's a player just below 1800 on Chess.com:

Current: 1799 Today's Rank: #24,524 of 1,667,498 Percentile: 98.5%

Below 2000? When I got my first FIDE rating (1704) 5 years ago I was told that the lowest rating was 1400. But it is true, the ratings are becoming lower and lower making it harder to achieve a better rating.

Live chess doesn't matter. You can play as many games as you want a day, and it makes it easy to gain a lot of rating if you have really become much stronger. You can't play OTB games when you want to play them. Most active chess players go maybe once or twice a month to a tournament. That is about 14 games a month. On chess.com, you can play even 60-90 games a month with OTB time control or a few hundred games with short time control.

JGambit

Jul 6, 2014

0

#183

To me that is part of the beauty of live chess, you can see how good you have gotten quickly. I have never played in a tournament but when I do I want to know that I am at least a strong club player strength

Ziryab

Jul 6, 2014

0

#184

Prudentia wrote:

Ziryab a écrit :

csalami10 wrote:

Ziryab írta:

nobodyreally wrote:

First of all 1800 is NOT an experienced GOOD player, It's the rating that goes with a very average mediocre club player.

In the US Chess Federation, which is not terribly atypical for Elo ratings, an 1800 player stands above 88%-90% of all rated players. That's not the normal meaning of average.

How many USCF rated chess players are there? It can't be too much if a player rated 1800 is stronger than the 90% of all other USCF players.
In June, there were 103270 players who had FIDE rating.
The last player who had an 1800 rating was placed 59206. on the list.
So 1800 is still below the average.

Only a couple of years ago, you could not get a FIDE rating below 2000. Then, they lowered it. To have a FIDE rating, one must be significantly above average.

A friend of mine who is 1811 is

Overall Ranking 5356(T) out of 54016 90.1

Rankings include only those with activity in the past year.

Your effort to dismiss a percentile distribution based upon the quantity in the pool is absurd. To see how, extend your logic to Chess.com, where the number of players dwarf the number of FIDE rated players.

Here's a player just below 1800 on Chess.com:

Current: 1799 Today's Rank: #24,524 of 1,667,498 Percentile: 98.5%

Yes, but what the FM said about the number of accounts is accurate. When looking at those numbers, a person should look at what kind of people may be making up the other 1,000,000 plus active users. Keep in mind, that only about 15,000 people are on at a time. So, those accounts may still be open, but not in use. If anything, chess.com's statistics are polluted due to some of the afformentioned statements. It's not that 1800 isn't a respectable rating for the average player and club player, it's just that the FM is providing a view from the top as opposed to a view from the bottom, and to be quite honest, he makes a very strong arguement.

Please do not conflate the illogical arguments of csalami10 with the much better reasoning of FM nobodyreally.

I took issue with nobodyreally's use of the word average, but not with the substance of his argument. The FM's post #203, to which he refers, makes an important distinction between the masses and a much smaller segment of players who might be deemed competitive.

Applying this distinction to the OP's question, we might say that an 1800 is a relatively weak competitive player, while a 1300 cannot be considered a true chess player. The model 1300 in my circle of acquaintances has been playing in chess competitions for forty years and yet remains a beginner with no chance of finishing near the top of even small local tournaments. In small, local events, an 1800 will often finish near the top and may even win a few events.

I think this answer to the original question is not inconsistent with the views expressed by FM nobodyreally.

Nonetheless, I must quibble with:

I don't know if 1800 is in the top 5% in chess.com but even if it is you have to realize that huge amount of players here are people that just learned the rules, are just here to have a look around, don't play chess at all, make troll accounts, have accounts to watch their friends play and chat with them, etc.etc.etc.

There are slightly fewer than 1.7 million players rated in Live Blitz on chess.com. This number represents a fraction of the alleged 7 million members. FM nobodyreally continues to fall short in his handling of numerical data.

1800 is significantly above average. From a competitive standpoint, however, the 1800 is quite mediocre.

A few years ago, USCF 1800 represented a player almost out of my reach. Now, I routinely beat players in the 1800s. I am still not any good. I have reached the level that was considered worthy for the average nine year old in the Young Pioneer chess clubs that nurtured most of the real chess players during my youth.

chessdragonboge

Jul 6, 2014

0

#185

the difference is that 1800s don't make as many mistakes as the 1300 (as in like blundering) i hope this helps

FM nobodyreally

Jul 6, 2014

0

#186

Ziryab wrote: A looong post +

Applying this distinction to the OP's question, we might say that an 1800 is a relatively weak competitive player, while a 1300 cannot be considered a true chess player.

I never said or implied that a 1300 player cannot be considered a true chess player. That would be really arrogant.

I wrote:

"Somebody that just knows the rules of chess in NOT a chessplayer imo. To me a chessplayer is someone that plays on a regular basis and/or joins a chessclub of sorts. In other words someone who is involved in the game."

So a 1300 player can perfectly well be considered a chessplayer.

If I explain so someone how to fry an egg and boil some potatoes that doesn't mean he/she can be considered a cook even though this person is technically cooking.

NR.

FM nobodyreally

Jul 6, 2014

0

#187

DjonniDerevnja wrote:

You are not able to see the strenght of lower rated players, because you have elevated to a higher level, out of sight.

It would be fun to try a game against you, just too feel the strenght of a master.

Incorrect,

I remember clearly almost all the games I played. Also the ones when I was playing at 1600-2000 level. And I am well aware of the strength and weaknesses of players at certain levels.

On the other hand my first rating was something like 1950 so I never really competed in tournaments that level.

I can imagine that I might come across as a pompous ass that looks upon weaker players with dédain. But I can assure you that is not the case.

And sure I'll give you a game sometime if you like that.

VLaurenT

Jul 6, 2014

0

#188

nobodyreally wrote:

On the other hand my first rating was something like 1950 so I never really competed in tournaments that level.(...)

...so much for people saying there's no talent in chess

Ziryab

Jul 6, 2014

0

#189

nobodyreally wrote:

Ziryab wrote: A looong post +

Applying this distinction to the OP's question, we might say that an 1800 is a relatively weak competitive player, while a 1300 cannot be considered a true chess player.

I never said or implied that a 1300 player cannot be considered a true chess player. That would be really arrogant.

I wrote:

"Somebody that just knows the rules of chess in NOT a chessplayer imo. To me a chessplayer is someone that plays on a regular basis and/or joins a chessclub of sorts. In other words someone who is involved in the game."

So a 1300 player can perfectly well be considered a chessplayer.

If I explain so someone how to fry an egg and boil some potatoes that doesn't mean he/she can be considered a cook even though this person is technically cooking.

NR.

I think that you are right about the cooking, but do not understand the implications of your own assertions about chess.

You are arrogant, aren't you. If not, why am I paying attention to anything that you say?

FM nobodyreally

Jul 6, 2014

0

#190

Optimissed wrote:

nobodyreally wrote:

Not sure about your rating.

But I am sure an 80 year old Korchnoi or Karpov would beat any <2200 (maybe higher) by out-calculating them. It's in their automatic pilot.>>>>

no because "any" 2200 might be the next Nigel Short.

YES, because he might be the next Nigel Short, but he isn't yet. Right now he's a <2200 player

Radical_Drift

Jul 6, 2014

0

#191

power_2_the_people wrote:

Some defensive skills? As Lasker has written: ''Steintiz enunciated a principle of defence. He who is at a disadvantage must be willing to defend himself, he must be willing to make a concession. But his guiding star must be the principle of economy. [...] Improves the worst weaknesses volontarily. The ideal of a position for defence is [...] that all of its lines of resistance be equally strong, that the chain contains only points of equal strength.

Yes, defense is important.

EVERGREEN_7

Jul 6, 2014

0

#192

wow,,what an intelligent question,,,seriously ??

EVERGREEN_7

Jul 6, 2014

0

#193

what i see is serious...

DjonniDerevnja

Jul 6, 2014

0

#194

nobodyreally wrote:

DjonniDerevnja wrote:

You are not able to see the strenght of lower rated players, because you have elevated to a higher level, out of sight.

It would be fun to try a game against you, just too feel the strenght of a master.

Incorrect,

I remember clearly almost all the games I played. Also the ones when I was playing at 1600-2000 level. And I am well aware of the strength and weaknesses of players at certain levels.

On the other hand my first rating was something like 1950 so I never really competed in tournaments that level.

I can imagine that I might come across as a pompous ass that looks upon weaker players with dédain. But I can assure you that is not the case.

And sure I'll give you a game sometime if you like that.

That memory of yours is a very special talent, but its a talent that is common among the best players in the world. Carlsen has it. I think they said Karjakin has it too. Such memory, combined with chessmathematic skills , training and understanding will take players to a high level faster than normal.

FM nobodyreally

Jul 7, 2014

0

#195

Optimissed wrote:

And perfectly capable of hammering an 80 year old karpov.

You probably never played any world class players and analysed with them after the game.

I did, hundreds of times. And you have NO IDEA AT ALL how incredibly strong they are. Even on automatic pilot.

I felt it through and through and it made me very humble as a chessplayer. Rightly so, btw.

tomy_gun

Jul 7, 2014

0

#196

cause after 1000...the players are grown up, all is more difficult and a victory is 1.5 point, while a loss is 1.2,while a draw is 1.5 again, or am I wrong?

Irontiger

Jul 7, 2014

0

#197

nobodyreally wrote:

I never said or implied that a 1300 player cannot be considered a true chess player. That would be really arrogant.

I wrote:

"Somebody that just knows the rules of chess in NOT a chessplayer imo. To me a chessplayer is someone that plays on a regular basis and/or joins a chessclub of sorts. In other words someone who is involved in the game."

So a 1300 player can perfectly well be considered a chessplayer.

To come back to the cooking analogy, if someone loves cooking, cooks most of his food, and still makes terrible meals because he doesn't care for taking lessons and/or isn't gifted, he still is a "cook".

But he is not a good benchmark for the next cooking reality-tv show.

FM nobodyreally

Jul 7, 2014

0

#198

Irontiger wrote:

nobodyreally wrote:

I never said or implied that a 1300 player cannot be considered a true chess player. That would be really arrogant.

I wrote:

"Somebody that just knows the rules of chess in NOT a chessplayer imo. To me a chessplayer is someone that plays on a regular basis and/or joins a chessclub of sorts. In other words someone who is involved in the game."

So a 1300 player can perfectly well be considered a chessplayer.

To come back to the cooking analogy, if someone loves cooking, cooks most of his food, and still makes terrible meals because he doesn't care for taking lessons and/or isn't gifted, he still is a "cook".

But he is not a good benchmark for the next cooking reality-tv show.

That's exactly what I was saying before. The level of playing doesn't matter.

FM nobodyreally

Jul 7, 2014

0

#199

Irontiger wrote:

But he is not a good benchmark for the next cooking reality-tv show.

So, look upon the next carlsen-anand world championship match as a cooking reality-tv show.

JagalTanahAbang

Jul 7, 2014

0

#200

'3' & '8'